In each of the above-entitled cases separate plaintiffs, as employers, have brought an action for damages and injunctive relief against the same defendants, as labor organizations, alleging the existence of a collective bargaining agreement between each of the plaintiffs and defendants, and the breach thereof by the defendants, in that the defendants have made demands for increased wages and other benefits, and are now conducting a strike to enforce those demands in violation of the agreement.

Defendants have interposed motions to dismiss, to strike and to make more definite. The motions to dismiss and to strike challenge the jurisdiction of the Court both as to the subject of the action and as to the power of the Court to grant injunctive relief. Argument was limited to the question of jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief,-the remaining questions being reserved for further hearing.

Jurisdiction is sought under the provisions of Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185 (a), which provides:

In this respect plaintiffs are immediately met with the interdiction of the applicable sections of the Norris-La-Guardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., unless the facts alleged in their respective complaints do not establish a “labor dispute” as that term is used in the Act, or unless the terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act are made nonapplicable by the above-quoted Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The applicable sections of the Norris-LaGuardia Act are 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 :

and 29 U.S.C.A. § 113 (c):

Even a cursory reading of the complaints establishes that they allege a “labor dispute” as that term is used in the Norris-LaGuardia Act. All of the complaints aver that defendants are striking and picketing to enforce demands for increased wages and other benefits in violation of the collective bargaining agreements. See Alcoa S.S. Co. v. McMahon, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 541 , and per curiam opinion affirming in 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 567 ; also California Ass’n of Employers v. Bldg, and Const. Trades Council, etc., 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 175, 179 . It is difficult to imagine a more clear-cut example of conduct which meets the definition of a “labor dispute” as that term is defined in the Act than the conduct charged" to the defendants in the complaints as being a breach of the respective collective bargaining agreements. Furthermore, the allegations of the complaints set forth acts and conduct on the part of defendants (striking and picketing for increased wages and other benefits) which are specifically not subject to injunctions under the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 104 (a) through (i). It is enough to quote the following:

Having concluded that plaintiffs’ averments state a “labor dispute” under the Norris-LaGuardia Act which would deprive this Court of jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief, it is necessary to consider plaintiffs’ contention that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act confers jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief because a fair interpretation of the language of that Section infers such jurisdiction as one of the remedies necessary to enforce the jurisdiction over the substantive rights granted, ánd, to that extent, that Section repeals, modifies, or renders . non-applicable the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Plaintiffs have cited a number of cases in which injunctive relief has been granted under Section 301(a). A careful reading of these cases will show that they are not authority for the proposition made by plaintiffs, in that there was no “labor dispute” as that term is used in the Norris-LaGuardia Act in any of the cases, and furthermore, the plaintiff in each of those cases was a labor organization against whom the ban of the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not apply in the particular case. Whatever injunctive power may have been conferred upon a District Court of the United States by Section 301(a) in a case in which a Norris-LaGuardia Act “labor dispute” does not exist is not available in cases where such “labor dispute” does exist, unless Section 301(a) repeals or otherwise limits the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in “suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing em-» ployees in an industry affecting commerce”.

To hold that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was so repealed or otherwise limited could be done only by implication for there is nothing in Section 301(a) which mentions the Norris-LaGuardia Act, or which specifically grants injunctive powers to Courts. As was pointed out in Amazon Cotton Mill Co. v. Textile Workers Union, 4 Cir., 167 F.2d 183 , Congress was clear and specific whenever it dealt with limitations on the Norris-LaGuardia Act in the Labor Management Relations Act. The Court said, 167 F.2d at page 186 :

Although the Court was there concerned with the jurisdiction of District Courts over unfair labor practices the same principle of statutory interpretation applies to Section 301(a). In California Ass’n of Employers v. Building and Const. Trades Council, etc., supra, in discussing the power of a District Court to issue an injunction in an action involving unfair labor practices the Court said, 178 F.2d at page 179 :

For a discussion of the legislative history of the Labor Management Relations Act as it relates to the injunction ban of the Norris-LaGuardia Act see Alcoa S.S. Co. v. McMahon, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1948, 81 F.Supp. 541 , at page 543. See also Associated Tel Co. v. Communication Workers, D.C.S.D.Cal., 114 F.Supp. 334 ; International Longshoremen’s & Ware-housemen’s Union, Local 6, C.I.O. v. Sunset Line & Twine Co., D.C.N.D.Cal., 77 F.Supp. 119 .

I must, therefore, conclude that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act does not in any way limit the ban of the Norris-LaGuardia Act against injunctions in “labor disputes” as that term is defined in the NorrisLaGuardia Act, and that this Court is yvithout jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction in any of the above-entitled actions since each complaint clearly alleges a “labor dispute.”

. Milk and Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Emp. Union, Local No. 98 v. Gillespie Milk Prod. Corp., 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 650 ; American Federation of Labor v. Western Union Tel. Co., 6 Cir., 179 F.2d 535 ; Textile Workers Union of Am., C. I. O. v. Aleo Mfg. Co., D.C.M.D.N.C., 1950, 94 F.Supp. 626 ; Mountain States Div. No. 17, Communications Workers of America v. Mountain States T. & T. Co., D.C.Colo., 81 F.Supp. 397 .